The Son of God:

"

bwam wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

But to accept the idea that God used man to express His will you would first have to have faith in the person saying that, requiring faith in that person's word before God's because he is saying he speaks for God. Isn't that the definition of a false idol?

I'll try to answer you directly. Indulge me while I direct you to something that is recorded in Scripture:

"

In Lystra there sat a man who was lame. He had been that way from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, “Stand up on your feet!” At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

(Acts 14:8-17, NIV)

No child of God would accept worship, which is reserved for God only. If someone were confused, as in the case we just read, that confusion would be put to bed as quickly as possible.

(This happens with John, when he is on the Island of Patmos and he receives the Revelation of Jesus Christ. At one point, John is about to worship an angel, when the angel corrects him, dispelling John's confusion over who the angel was.)

But let's talk about Daniel. When King Nebuchadnezzar had his first dream interpreted by Daniel, Daniel told the King what he had dreamed and interpreted the King's dream for him -- without being told by King Nebuchadnezzar what the dream had been. The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."

And no, King Nebuchadnezzar did not worship Daniel, nor did he put Daniel before God in any way.

Does this answer you?

Not really, you're framing your response from my perspective as though you have total faith and belief in the people who wrote the bible and then those living you've learned from. It seems to me you're still framing your worship on the words of the people who told you the story you quoted me and not the words of God.


Unless I'm misunderstanding it appears to me you're saying scripture says to have access to God and to understand Him you must first have faith in what man has said and wrote down and that you frame your relationship with God and your worship of God solely around the words of man.


It seems odd to me that from what I understand your religion isn't based on having faith in God but first requiring faith in the men that wrote the words of the scripture you've told me.

I may be off base here but it seems to me to be a Christian isn't just to believe in God but the Christian God as told by scripture, as told by man.

"

FedeS wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

OK, here's the situation:
1. God gives his Word through Man, whom he deems appropriate to relay his Word.
2. God gives us his Word, who was with God in the beginning and was God, directly: the Word became flesh -- that is, the Son of Man, Christ Jesus.
3. God appoints men to relay the gospel of Jesus, so that we might all receive his Word.

To begin with, we can't trust Man . That's the point.

Wrong word. I don't for a second believe you think it cannot be done, even if you believe it shouldn't.

A child learns that he can accomplish nothing on his own without trusting himself. An adult learns it is best not to trust oneself too much, lest one do something regrettable. So it is with society as it is with our selves. Yes, humility is a virtue — but courage is as well. Hopefully we find the wisdom to use both properly.

Have to agree there, we all trust man, you pretty much have to rely on the knowledge of others because no person can know everything. Even the most brilliant scientist defers to his peers when the subject is out of his wheelhouse.

Granted one can debate the merits of an evidence based trust system versus a theological based trust system, but I'm electing to bow out of that one.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Not really, you're framing your response from my perspective as though you have total faith and belief in the people who wrote the bible and then those living you've learned from. It seems to me you're still framing your worship on the words of the people who told you the story you quoted me and not the words of God.


Unless I'm misunderstanding it appears to me you're saying scripture says to have access to God and to understand Him you must first have faith in what man has said and wrote down and that you frame your relationship with God and your worship of God solely around the words of man.


It seems odd to me that from what I understand your religion isn't based on having faith in God but first requiring faith in the men that wrote the words of the scripture you've told me.

I may be off base here but it seems to me to be a Christian isn't just to believe in God but the Christian God as told by scripture, as told by man.

I mentioned Daniel interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. King Nebuchadnezzar was a real king; check the history books (ones you do not reject). He was the king of Babylon, and had great power.

If someone were to distribute, falsely, an account of the King's dream being interpreted -- wouldn't such a man of power hold people to account? Wouldn't he prevent the spread of such a falsehood?

The interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream given to Daniel, given to the King without his saying what his dream was -- this account gives glory to the Living God. King Nebuchadnezzar did not desire worship of God, but worship of himself; there are accounts of this also. If God's revelation through Daniel had not occurred, would not have King Nebuchadnezzar rejected (viciously) stories of such an account? Would not Daniel himself have rejected these stories publicly, or have fled, in fear of his life? But instead, Daniel was put into a position of authority. This is also historical fact.

Yes, I have faith in what is written in Scripture. And it's for that reason that I know that the historicity of what is recorded is trustworthy and true, and that any (true) accounts found elsewhere corroborate what is written.

---

You act as though Jesus Christ did not himself come in the flesh. Now, whether you reject his Word is up to you: this is not my decision. However, to say that you have to rely upon some intermediary, interposing their understanding of who God is, to know God's Nature, is wrong. Whether you recognize God's Nature in Christ Jesus is entirely the point. He came and spoke directly, and was crucified under false pretenses while being perfect, blameless, and pure; more than a sufficient number of witnesses have attested to the truth of his Gospel.

To say that there is static, because you think a game of telephone was played, ignores the agreement between the four different witnesses who have written their testimony for your, my, and everyone else's benefit.

"

bwam wrote:

more than a sufficient number of witnesses have attested to the truth of his Gospel.

Explain me what witness out of bible attested the veracity of jesus existence.

Please drop names/text

"

bwam wrote:

I mentioned Daniel interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. King Nebuchadnezzar was a real king; check the history books (ones you do not reject). He was the king of Babylon, and had great power.

If someone were to distribute, falsely, an account of the King's dream being interpreted -- wouldn't such a man of power hold people to account? Wouldn't he prevent the spread of such a falsehood?

The interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream given to Daniel, given to the King without his saying what his dream was -- this account gives glory to the Living God. King Nebuchadnezzar did not desire worship of God, but worship of himself; there are accounts of this also. If God's revelation through Daniel had not occurred, would not have King Nebuchadnezzar rejected (viciously) stories of such an account?

This is an odd conclusion to draw when the most powerful man in the world currently is also the most disparaged, ridiculed and mocked man in the world currently. Do you truly believe Nebuchadnezzar's power reached everywhere, in terms of both breadth and depth? That he had no enemies or, if he did, they all had to perpetually conceal their animus?

We are all the children of god right? So jesus is just another nobody among the bunch of nobody's.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Head_Less wrote:

Explain me what witness out of bible attested the veracity of jesus existence.

Please drop names/text

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is an odd conclusion to draw when the most powerful man in the world currently is also the most disparaged, ridiculed and mocked man in the world currently. Do you truly believe Nebuchadnezzar's power reached everywhere, in terms of both breadth and depth? That he had no enemies or, if he did, they all had to perpetually conceal their animus?

President Trump has not demanded people fall down and worship him under threat of being tossed into a blazing furnace; he is not trying to steal God's Glory for himself. That's a big difference.

Additionally, King Nebuchadnezzar was considerably more powerful than President Trump is. Without "checks and balances," he ruled with authority.

The two men are very different, and the circumstances of Empire were very different then than they are now.

"

Boem wrote:

We are all the children of god right? So jesus is just another nobody among the bunch of nobody's.

You ask me if we are all children of God. So I ask in return, what does your heart tell you?

Those who reject the Son also reject the Father. Those who reject the Father are destined for destruction, and are not God's children.

"

bwam wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

We are all the children of god right? So jesus is just another nobody among the bunch of nobody's.

You ask me if we are all children of God. So I ask in return, what does your heart tell you?

Those who reject the Son also reject the Father. Those who reject the Father are destined for destruction, and are not God's children.

tl;dr no we are not all gods children, only a select few and all the others are destined for damnation.

Sweet.

How does the "and he created men in his image" stuff hold up with that viewpoint.

A) god is a joke
B) he created cattle to lead to the slaughter on purpose
C) he was high on ether when the whole "creation" stuff went down

To be fair your an atheist who believes in one more god then i do.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

We are all the children of god right? So jesus is just another nobody among the bunch of nobody's.

You ask me if we are all children of God. So I ask in return, what does your heart tell you?

Those who reject the Son also reject the Father. Those who reject the Father are destined for destruction, and are not God's children.

tl;dr no we are not all gods children, only a select few and all the others are destined for damnation.

Sweet.

How does the "and he created men in his image" stuff hold up with that viewpoint.

A) god is a joke
B) he created cattle to lead to the slaughter on purpose
C) he was high on ether when the whole "creation" stuff went down

To be fair your an atheist who believes in one more god then i do.

Peace,

-Boem-

Your misuse of the English language, calling a believer "an athiest who believes," is ridiculous and abhorrent. Don't twist language perversely and then fling it at me like mud.